Radiation level increase in northern Europe may ‘indicate damage’ to nuclear power plant in Russia

Cutlass

The Man Who Wasn't There.
Joined
Jan 13, 2008
Messages
47,758
Location
US of A
Radiation level increase in northern Europe may ‘indicate damage’ to nuclear power plant in Russia


Russian authorities deny any leakage or fault with power plants in St Petersburg and Murmansk



Low levels of radiation spotted in northern Europe may have come from a malfunctioning nuclear power plant in western Russia.

Nuclear safety officials from Finland, Norway and Sweden have all announced earlier this week they have detected increased radioactive isotopes across Scandinavia and in some Arctic regions.

While the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority said on Tuesday it was not possible to confirm the source of radiation, Dutch authorities have analysed data from their Nordic neighbours and concluded it originated in western Russia.

“The radionuclides are artificial, that is to say they are man-made,” the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment in the Netherlands said on Friday.

“The composition of the nuclides may indicate damage to a fuel element in a nuclear power plant [but] a specific source location cannot be identified due to the limited number of measurements.”

However, the Russian nuclear power operator Rosenergoatom has denied there are any problems with its two power plants in in the country’s northwest.

The Russian news agency Tass quoted an unnamed spokesperson from Rosenergoatom who said both a plant near St Petersburg and another near Murmansk were operating “normally, with radiation levels being within the norm”.

Radiation levels at the two plants had not changed for the whole month of June, the spokesperson added.

“Both stations are working in normal regime. There have been no complaints about the equipment’s work. No incidents related to release of radionuclide outside containment structures have been reported.”

The low levels and particular isotopes detected in Scandinavia are not harmful either to humans or the environment.

Other groups have also spotted the slight rise, however. The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organisation said on Friday their radiation-monitoring sensors in Sweden had also detected a slight increase of several harmless isotopes in northwestern European airspace.

Russia is one of the largest producers of nuclear power in the world, with ten currently operational plants and several more under construction.

The country’s nuclear power operator has also signed billions of dollars-worth of contracts to build nuclear power plants using Russian technology in other countries, such as India, Turkey and Iran.

Additional reporting by Associated Press

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...avia-nuclear-power-plant-russia-a9589301.html



Here we go again. And we should build more nuclear power plants why?
 
It appears as if rose in radiological level was small. Unlikely to be a breach in nuclear powered submarine. Theory is some civilian nuclear reactor had a leak. Unsure if it means commercial or someone’s backyard science project going wrong.
 
Yep. Not even enough to hurt people, I think.

probably just some backyard experiment going wrong.
 
An experiment to produce Skripal-Litvinenko mutant killer clone gone wrong. It was black and they planned to use it undercover in the ongoing protests to further instigate Maidan and to hack British scientists.
 
A nucler-powered submarine got hit by the deadly anti-Christ homophobe virus Covid XIX. Death rate is 146%. The submarine has hit the ocean floor. Potanin has officially denied that he owned 60% of this submarine officers’ stock. Estonia mobilizes its army of three soldiers seeing it as a Russian invasion.
 
Uh, no?

Chernoblyl? Fukushima?
Both of those reactors were constructed and operational from the 1970’s. Have safety features improved significantly in that time? I’m not directing the question to you specifically but just wondering aloud.

Anyway, the important thing to look at across all types of power would be something like injuries per megawatt hour. Isolated nuclear accidents don’t give us the whole story of whether or not nuclear power is safe. If this article is to be believed, then nuclear is one of the safest options available.

Then I suppose it comes down to cost and availability factors, all of which would go way over my head.
 
Seems like your laptop gets its energy directly from the astral plane. But that steals life mana from the elves so they die. Elvish lives matter!

This is no Russian joke, this is not a "Putin's approved" joke, this is referenced from a capitalist cartoon "Rick and Morty" isn't it? From the episode where Rick conditioned a mini-verse inside his vehicle battery?

I know you are but a western spy, a capitalist pawn.
 
Cutlass said:
And we should build more nuclear power plants why?

Because the danger from statistically rare meltdowns is far outweighed by the danger posed by global warming. If Earth ever gets serious about addressing that impending apocalypse then nuclear energy is probably the best option.

Especially since the promise fusion is proving more and more to be a pipe-dream.
 
Last edited:
Question is if alternatives are really better. Coal and gas plants emit CO2 and coal also creates a lot of pollution. Hydro plants flood the land and require rivers. Wind and solar plants depend on weather and also costly to build and maintain.
 
Uh, no?

Chernoblyl? Fukushima?

At vastly too much cost and risk. @Arwon did a good post on that once.


Two major accidents (plus around two more major soviet ones and then minor ones like TMI) out of hundreds of plants over 80 years? I'll take it.

We cant just shove off Nuclear just because some accidents occur, especially because the alternate to Nuclear isn't suddenly to dam up more rivers with more dams or solar plants or geothermals but often coal or oil.

Until a international effort coats the deserts of the Southwest, Sahara, Sahel, or Gobi with solar power for thousands of miles, nuclear has to stay.
 
Question is if alternatives are really better. Coal and gas plants emit CO2 and coal also creates a lot of pollution. Hydro plants flood the land and require rivers. Wind and solar plants depend on weather and also costly to build and maintain.


Wind and solar are already more cost effective baseline power than nuclear or fossil. And they're just going to keep getting better.


Two major accidents (plus around two more major soviet ones and then minor ones like TMI) out of hundreds of plants over 80 years? I'll take it.

We cant just shove off Nuclear just because some accidents occur, especially because the alternate to Nuclear isn't suddenly to dam up more rivers with more dams or solar plants or geothermals but often coal or oil.

Until a international effort coats the deserts of the Southwest, Sahara, Sahel, or Gobi with solar power for thousands of miles, nuclear has to stay.


You vastly overestimate how much area would have to be covered with solar.

Nuclear is here for the foreseeable future. It won't be just closed down. But nuclear is far too expensive for anyone but a power-desperate government to build. It's just not going to happen in the private sector. So the same private sector which is building wind and solar as fast as it can will not invest in nuclear. Which makes nuclear's days numbered, no matter what advantages it may offer. The existing plants in the US are all, or nearly so, over 40 years old. When those plants do exceed their lifespans and get shut down, they will not be replaced with more nuclear. It's just a waste of money to do so.
 
Top Bottom